The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry's (R) decision to implement a new law that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program.

Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), wrote Texas health officials a letter on Thursday explaining that the state broke federal Medicaid rules by discriminating against qualified family planning providers and thus would be losing the entire program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to 130,000 low-income women each year.

"We very much regret the state's decision to implement this rule, which will prevent women enrolled in the program from receiving services from the trusted health care providers they have chosen and relied upon for their care," she wrote. "In light of Texas' actions, CMS is not in a position to extend or renew the current [Medicaid contract]."

The federal government pays for nearly 90 percent of Texas' $40 million Women's Health Program, and nearly half of the program's providers in Texas are Planned Parenthood clinics. But the new law that went into effect earlier this month disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the program because some of its clinics provide abortions, even though no state or federal money can be used to pay for those abortions.

Remember earlier this month when [Wisconsin state senator Glenn Grothman] thoughtfully suggested that maybe single parenthood should be considered a factor that may be indicative of child abuse? [State Sen. Don] Pridemore was a co-sponsor of the bill that would've made it a crime for a person to dare try to raise a child on their own outside of the pillowy soft Magic Zone of marriage. But what about women who are being abused by their husbands? Shouldn't they have the option to extract themselves from an unhealthy situation? Nope, says Pridemore. And he's got some expert abused spouse marital advice as well: "If they can refind those reasons and get back to why they got married in the first place it might help."

So, the solution to divorce and spousal abuse is just remembering why you love your abuser? Did he learn about love, relationships, and psychology from tragic early country songs?

[...]

Meanwhile Glenn Grothman, the "single parenthood is child abuse" bill's awful asshat of an author, has not only doubled down on the legislation, but he's attempted to out-cock himself by singling women out as the culprits of this non-plural parenthood pandemic. It's the women, you see, who have chosen to raise children by themselves over the course of the last 30 years. And that needs to change right now, by criminalizing single motherhood and legally bullying them into loveless and harmful marriages (and, oddly, penalizing people who dare get married to someone who is fated to die tragically at a young age, leaving them to raise the child or children by themselves).

WASHINGTON — With emotions still raw from the fight over President Obama’s contraception mandate, Senate Democrats are beginning a push to renew the Violence Against Women Act, the once broadly bipartisan 1994 legislation that now faces fierce opposition from conservatives.

The fight over the law, which would expand financing for and broaden the reach of domestic violence programs, will be joined Thursday when Senate Democratic women plan to march to the Senate floor to demand quick action on its extension. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has suggested he will push for a vote by the end of March.

[...]

The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

[...]

The latest Senate version of the bill has five Republican co-sponsors, including Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, a co-author, but it failed to get a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee last month.

In the dead of night, the Wisconsin Assembly passed SB 237, a bill that restricts teenagers’ access to medically accurate information about human sexuality. The bill would destroy what some characterize as the “gold standard” for human sexuality education in public schools by eliminating all references to contraception, and requires schools to teach that abstinence is the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Halfway through my pregnancy, I learned that my baby was ill. Profoundly so. My doctor gave us the news kindly, but still, my husband and I weren’t prepared. Just a few minutes earlier, we’d been smiling giddily at fellow expectant parents as we waited for the doctor to see us. In a sonography room smelling faintly of lemongrass, I’d just had gel rubbed on my stomach, just seen blots on the screen become tiny hands. For a brief, exultant moment, we’d seen our son—a brother for our 2-year-old girl.

Yet now my doctor was looking grim and, with chair pulled close, was speaking of alarming things. “I’m worried about your baby’s head shape,” she said. “I want you to see a specialist—now.”

My husband looked angry, and maybe I did too, but it was astonishment more than anger. Ours was a profound disbelief that something so bad might happen to people who think themselves charmed. We already had one healthy child and had expected good fortune to give us two.

Instead, before I’d even known I was pregnant, a molecular flaw had determined that our son’s brain, spine and legs wouldn’t develop correctly. If he were to make it to term—something our doctor couldn’t guarantee—he’d need a lifetime of medical care. From the moment he was born, my doctor told us, our son would suffer greatly.

So, softly, haltingly, my husband asked about termination. The doctor shot me a glance that said: Are you okay to hear this now? I nodded, clenched my fists and focused on the cowboy boots beneath her scrubs.

Quote

My doctor went on to tell us that, just two weeks prior, a new Texas law had come into effect requiring that women wait an extra 24 hours before having the procedure. Moreover, Austin has only one clinic providing second-trimester terminations, and that clinic might have a long wait. “Time is not on your side,” my doctor emphasized gently.

Quote

My counselor said that the law required me to have another ultrasound that day, and that I was legally obligated to hear a doctor describe my baby. I’d then have to wait 24 hours before coming back for the procedure. She said that I could either see the sonogram or listen to the baby’s heartbeat, adding weakly that this choice was mine.

“I don’t want to have to do this at all,” I told her. “I’m doing this to prevent my baby’s suffering. I don’t want another sonogram when I’ve already had two today. I don’t want to hear a description of the life I’m about to end. Please,” I said, “I can’t take any more pain.” I confess that I don’t know why I said that. I knew it was fait accompli. The counselor could no more change the government requirement than I could. Yet here was a superfluous layer of torment piled upon an already horrific day, and I wanted this woman to know it.

“We have no choice but to comply with the law,” she said, adding that these requirements were not what Planned Parenthood would choose. Then, with a warmth that belied the materials in her hand, she took me through the rules. First, she told me about my rights regarding child support and adoption. Then she gave me information about the state inspection of the clinic. She offered me a pamphlet called A Woman’s Right to Know, saying that it described my baby’s development as well as how the abortion procedure works. She gave me a list of agencies that offer free sonograms, and which, by law, have no affiliation with abortion providers. Finally, after having me sign reams of paper, she led me to the doctor who’d perform the sonography, and later the termination.

The doctor and nurse were professional and kind, and it was clear that they understood our sorrow. They too apologized for what they had to do next. For the third time that day, I exposed my stomach to an ultrasound machine, and we saw images of our sick child forming in blurred outlines on the screen.

“I’m so sorry that I have to do this,” the doctor told us, “but if I don’t, I can lose my license.” Before he could even start to describe our baby, I began to sob until I could barely breathe. Somewhere, a nurse cranked up the volume on a radio, allowing the inane pronouncements of a DJ to dull the doctor’s voice. Still, despite the noise, I heard him. His unwelcome words echoed off sterile walls while I, trapped on a bed, my feet in stirrups, twisted away from his voice.

“Here I see a well-developed diaphragm and here I see four healthy chambers of the heart...”

I closed my eyes and waited for it to end, as one waits for the car to stop rolling at the end of a terrible accident.

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry's (R) decision to implement a new law that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program.

Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), wrote Texas health officials a letter on Thursday explaining that the state broke federal Medicaid rules by discriminating against qualified family planning providers and thus would be losing the entire program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to 130,000 low-income women each year.

"We very much regret the state's decision to implement this rule, which will prevent women enrolled in the program from receiving services from the trusted health care providers they have chosen and relied upon for their care," she wrote. "In light of Texas' actions, CMS is not in a position to extend or renew the current [Medicaid contract]."

The federal government pays for nearly 90 percent of Texas' $40 million Women's Health Program, and nearly half of the program's providers in Texas are Planned Parenthood clinics. But the new law that went into effect earlier this month disqualified Planned Parenthood from participating in the program because some of its clinics provide abortions, even though no state or federal money can be used to pay for those abortions.

"Obama's War on Medicaid Recipients" would be more accurate (not that that's saying much . . .)

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring.

And should women who don't want to abort but need to do so for medical reasons be forced to go through extra hoops to make the experience even more traumatic? Because that's what is happening.

Quote

Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

Planned Parenthood receive exactly 0 dollars from the government to fund abortions. What's being taken away from are programs that allow women to not get pregnant in the first place so they wouldn't have to consider an abortion and to ensure that babies they want are born healthy. In other words you'll still have the abortions, but you're taking away things that might actually prevent abortions - how exactly is that a good thing?

In a debate over Georgia House Bill 954, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks even if the baby is not expected to live, England recalled the time he had spent with livestock.

“Life gives us many experiences,” he explained. “I’ve had the experience of delivering calves, dead and alive — delivering pigs, dead and alive. … It breaks our hearts to see those animals not make it.”

...

House Bill 954 easily passed last week by a vote of 102-65.

Opponents have said that the so-called “fetal pain” bill would force women to carry stillborn fetuses or to have a Cesarean delivery. Doctors could also face 10 years in prison if they are involved in illegal abortions.

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

Just so we're clear: You're advocating the punishment for murder--15 to life in Ohio-for any woman that knowingly terminates her pregnancy? I likewise presume that you support mandatory bindover to the adult court system for any juvenile teenage girl who commits Murder (again, as is the law in Ohio)?

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

The last time I checked, a cluster of undifferentiated stem cells did not constitute a person. Let's take those out of the womb and watch them survive.

The Democrats pushing this "War on Women" issue is tiresome. Everyone knows Republicans have issues with women, why do they have to talk about it all the time? They remind me a great deal of the man who was angered at a dog barking at him and beat the dog to death. After the dog was dead the man continued to beat the corpse of the dead dog. "Hey, why are you hitting that dog?" a neighbor asked, "It is already dead!" "I know," the man responded, "But I believe in punishment after death."

The Democrats pushing this "War on Women" issue is tiresome. Everyone knows Republicans have issues with women, why do they have to talk about it all the time?

Because if they don't the Republicans will get away with it, duh. You don't just ignore an issue like this if you want it to go away.

QFT.

Never used that term before, but this post deserved it.

Yes, but is there not the slightest chance that the wagging of this issue may be easily spun by Republicans as one brought up ONLY to distract from the economy thus minimizing the rights of women to a mere campaign side-show? Is that really in the best interest of the community?

The Democrats pushing this "War on Women" issue is tiresome. Everyone knows Republicans have issues with women, why do they have to talk about it all the time?

Because if they don't the Republicans will get away with it, duh. You don't just ignore an issue like this if you want it to go away.

QFT.

Never used that term before, but this post deserved it.

Yes, but is there not the slightest chance that the wagging of this issue may be easily spun by Republicans as one brought up ONLY to distract from the economy thus minimizing the rights of women to a mere campaign side-show? Is that really in the best interest of the community?

I don't think there's any good way the Republicans can spin people pointing out the problems with their women's rights issues in a way that favors them. They are losing women voters over this.

As far as the economy I don't believe it's been forgotten, nor ever will be. It is always a central issue in any major race, regardless of the other issues de jour. The issue still comes up. I also don't believe the Republicans really have the answers the our economic woes.

Also, ignoring women's rights issues is definitely not in the best interests of the community. Especially the female part.

I'm glad we have a single thread for all this stuff, since there's no sign of the GOP slowing its recent streak of bizarre mysoginistic initiatives, so we can probably expect much, much more of this kind of thing.

No it's the Democratic War on Women because they're the ones trying to exploit them for voter sympathy. First it was abortion and when the Democrats lost on that, they ran to the courts for help. Then it was women's health and when Obamacare wasn't popular they turned the issue into contraceptives. Next, they'll be focusing on PMS pills and talking about how Republicans don't want to help women with PMS. This is what Democrats do. They exploit people in the name of equality!!! Our founding fathers vision for this nation and reasons for fighting in the revolutionary war had nothing to do with where college girls get their contraceptives. They were also wise to not put anything of it in the constitution or Declaration of Independence. I could care less where Suzie gets her birth control. There, someone had the guts to say it. Now you can demonize me as well.

YOU MEAN TO TELL ME GEORGE WASHINGTON NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS?!

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

Just so we're clear: You're advocating the punishment for murder--15 to life in Ohio-for any woman that knowingly terminates her pregnancy? I likewise presume that you support mandatory bindover to the adult court system for any juvenile teenage girl who commits Murder (again, as is the law in Ohio)?

Yes, that would be the eventual goal. I understand many people find such an idea to be too much and would therefore support any intermediate steps to move in that direction.

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

Just so we're clear: You're advocating the punishment for murder--15 to life in Ohio-for any woman that knowingly terminates her pregnancy? I likewise presume that you support mandatory bindover to the adult court system for any juvenile teenage girl who commits Murder (again, as is the law in Ohio)?

Yes, that would be the eventual goal. I understand many people find such an idea to be too much and would therefore support any intermediate steps to move in that direction.

In other words, you consider abortion murder but it's apparently not such a big deal that you insist it be treated like actual murder. You are fine with compromising on murder. How moral of you...

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

Just so we're clear: You're advocating the punishment for murder--15 to life in Ohio-for any woman that knowingly terminates her pregnancy? I likewise presume that you support mandatory bindover to the adult court system for any juvenile teenage girl who commits Murder (again, as is the law in Ohio)?

Yes, that would be the eventual goal. I understand many people find such an idea to be too much and would therefore support any intermediate steps to move in that direction.

In other words, you consider abortion murder but it's apparently not such a big deal that you insist it be treated like actual murder. You are fine with compromising on murder. How moral of you...

There's more than one account of morality, obviously. The sort of all-or-nothing deontology you are assuming is only one account. If someone believes an act is horrible, then it's not necessarily immoral for them to approve of the nearest thing that will stop it just because it's not prosecuting it to the fullest. Indeed, there's a sense in which refusing to act to stop murder due to concerns of legal consistency is itself a compromise with murder.I'll go further than TJ here. If there's any other way to stop abortion, I'd rather women not be sentenced a murderer's sentence for it. They're told that what they are doing isn't killing, they are pressured into it, etc. (I know this point has gotten me called condescending in the past, but whatever . . .) The fundamental value here is not prosecuting murder, it is protection of innocent life. Having a juvenile justice system doesn't mean a murder isn't as awful just because there's a different legal response. I imagine you think Truth and Reconciliation Commission was immoral because it wasn't the full Nuremburg treatment, but many people who had to live with real world consequences believe that for peace and healing it was the right thing to do.

The single motherhood bill is pretty stupid and they probably shouldn't be holding the domestic violence bill hostage but otherwise I'm fine with this.

Abortion is murder (which many of you disagree with but nevertheless consider the consequences of that statement for a moment). That means somewhat extraordinary means can be used to stop it from occurring. Planned Parenthood murders 1.5% of its patients, so I have absolutely no problem with making is more difficult for them to get money.

Just so we're clear: You're advocating the punishment for murder--15 to life in Ohio-for any woman that knowingly terminates her pregnancy? I likewise presume that you support mandatory bindover to the adult court system for any juvenile teenage girl who commits Murder (again, as is the law in Ohio)?

Yes, that would be the eventual goal. I understand many people find such an idea to be too much and would therefore support any intermediate steps to move in that direction.

In other words, you consider abortion murder but it's apparently not such a big deal that you insist it be treated like actual murder. You are fine with compromising on murder. How moral of you...

There's more than one account of morality, obviously. The sort of all-or-nothing deontology you are assuming is only one account. If someone believes an act is horrible, then it's not necessarily immoral for them to approve of the nearest thing that will stop it just because it's not prosecuting it to the fullest. Indeed, there's a sense in which refusing to act to stop murder due to concerns of legal consistency is itself a compromise with murder.I'll go further than TJ here. If there's any other way to stop abortion, I'd rather women not be sentenced a murderer's sentence for it. They're told that what they are doing isn't killing, they are pressured into it, etc. (I know this point has gotten me called condescending in the past, but whatever . . .) The fundamental value here is not prosecuting murder, it is protection of innocent life. Having a juvenile justice system doesn't mean a murder isn't as awful just because there's a different legal response. I imagine you think Truth and Reconciliation Commission was immoral because it wasn't the full Nuremburg treatment, but many people who had to live with real world consequences believe that for peace and healing it was the right thing to do.

I don't think you get what I'm actually saying - I'm saying that if he thinks it's ok to just dawdle and compromise over what he views as mass murder, then I don't think he actually views it as murder. IMO, his actions and attitude do not carry the same weight as someone who is dealing with mass murder within his own country.

Also, the TRC vs Nuremburg thing isn't an apt comparison to this issue - those were dealing with atrocities after they occurred. We're talking about something that is still occurring and will continue to occur.

I never include Abortion as part of the " War on women", because I personally believe protecting women's sexual freedom ( Contraceptives, birth control) is a completely different issue than fighting against the killing of babies. Contraceptives represent basic rights that should be protected for women, whiles I feel abortion overrides the rights of a Child to life. When you impede on someone Else's rights I feel it's morally wrong especially when it comes to whether or not they're allowed to live (Which is the same reason I'm against the death penalty).

I never include Abortion as part of the " War on women", because I personally believe protecting women's sexual freedom ( Contraceptives, birth control) is a completely different issue than fighting against the killing of babies. Contraceptives represent basic rights that should be protected for women, whiles I feel abortion overrides the rights of a Child to life. When you impede on someone Else's rights I feel it's morally wrong especially when it comes to whether or not they're allowed to live (Which is the same reason I'm against the death penalty).

Dude, we're not just talking about abortions for convenience - these people are trying to restrict abortions in cases of medical necessity. In the process they are also defunding organizations that help with contraceptives and healthy birthing, which is not going to decrease the number of abortions since none of that funding goes to abortions. Women are the ones who are affected most by this. Read the posted articles.